BREXIT - leave or remain?

[Deleted]

exactly & people still want this organisation to carry on.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/futu...elling-circus/

The UK will build 8 Mid sized combat ships.
at the tune of 12 billion pounds.
It could have bought 16-20 for the same amount of money (on license) from the Italians (or the french or the Spanish, or anyone who already fucking designed one) - and to be clear, when i say license, i mean that they would have still been built in the UK -
So to put it simply - all fucking states waste money for stupid reasons - No lets rephrase that, all rich western nations does that.

[Slant]

By that same logic then the Scottish should not be calling themselves a 'Remain' country. 1,661,191 votes for remain out of and eligible 3,987,112. The SNP are calling this a mandate for independence and that Scotland is pro EU. When in reality only 41.6% of the country actually voted to remain.

Shit like this is why I am embarrassed of the actions and attitudes of my fellow remain voters post the results.

I'm not entirely sure if you comprehended what she tried to say...

[Manthis]

What the heck are you even talking about? I am Swedish for crying out loud. *points at Location*

My bad, rarely look at the location thing, because most people put something random in there (me included)

[Slant]

My bad, rarely look at the location thing, because most people put something random in there (me included)

So? I know you're from Finland. Couldn't have made a more precise location in it than what you did.

[Noradin]

You've heard that stuff with how the EU wants to phase out English as an official EU language?
It's almost like watching a kindergarten. They all go "You don't want to play with us, so we don't want your stuff, huuumpf"

It's ridiculous.

Well, now that you mention it I have?
did you come up with the idea?

Edit: Ok I found the quote you misunderstood.
Some politican pointed out that with the UK leaving one would have to take action to keep English as an official language as there would be no more member to sponsor it anymore.

[Deleted]

It just shows that the rest of population doesn't care either way, or thinks "pox on both your houses".

It would not be solved by "direct democracy" too; people would just go "what this guy who i trust to make (bad) judgement thinks? I vote same(/other) way", and you would get the same populists running opinion shows, even if you would make voting fully mandatory (as some countries do).

Its very important how many people go vote. I don't think 70% is small number but is it enough to make some drastic changes? I don't know. I know one for sure less ppl go vote less mandate to make drastic changes. Its duty of politicians to make people want to vote. If theres no will to vote, politicians failed. For example in my country around 50% ppl go vote. Winning party got 30 % of votes (so 15% in reality) so how strong is their mandate? I would say close to laughable. 70% out of 70% is around 50% of all possible votes...leavers won 52-48 and its close to draw, society is kinda broken at this point. Better question is: was this referendum even needed. I will give one example: lets make referendum in my country and ask ppl are they up for death penalty. 99% im sure they will want death penalty, but its against all treaties, EU and whole civilized world, so what is conclusion? You dont make stupid referendums.

[Noradin]

It's accurate although slightly murky to what extent it holds true. In this case it wouldn't even come into play to be honest since the referendum was advisory and didn't lay out any action to be taken beyond asking the question.

If the claim is subject to unmentioned exceptions and/or limitations then it is not true.
If it were true that would for example mean that parliaments are bound by no laws, no precedures, and no international treaties.
You wouldn't want to live in such a "democracy".

[Stacyrect]

We, as in 70% of the 92% registered who are eligible for voting. Let me put it this way: Of 1000 eligible voters barely a third voted to leave. I guess that's what you could call dictatorship of the minority in its truest form. That's why referenda with simple majority are always running contrary to the idea of true direct democracy and are vulnerable to populists fishing for votes. If it had been fair then given the number of voters who actually came around to vote then, taking variances into account, a majority of 75% of the votes would have been required to win this. Democracy in this age of low political education is just a buzzword for ochlocratic principles espoused by a few rabble-rousers with the political competence of a shaved orang-utan.

If that were the case, hardly anything, ever, would get done

[Noradin]

Still... That voted against being a country. "Fredoooooooom" my arse.

So what, then they make to next referendum about "independence an apply to EU membership immideately if the UK ever leaves the EU."

[Sodia]

Calling 52% of the population idiots. Very classy.

Thats why Democracy fails here... In pools over 90% English 2 + 10 Inbred SB that didn't work a single day for 2 generations or more ... Vote leave ... Funny thing is they are the one thats going to be hammered the most after Uk leave EU :P Good job UK!! I wonder whu you'r going to blame next ?? Muslims ?? Jews ?? Weather?? Global warming??

[Deleted]

72% voter turnout with the majority of people not voting being 18-24. Yup, leave voters are definite idiots.

Calm down and accept the democracy you liberals love so much (until it doesn't go your way).

Errm based on the reasons why most leavers voted to leave, they don't have even basic knowledge about things like EU, schengen agreement, EEA, UK rights in EU and so on... The common term for this kind of people is correctly idiot ( not all of them, obviously) Don't get me wrong, it' s describes basically the average voter. Tbh I'n kinda dissappointed by UK democracy...no sane politican gives something so important to the hands of average people who votes from guts and decision based on emotion. They don' t have any relevant knowledge about (geo)politics, economy, can't see the big picture... Same here, same everywhere...

[Ravenblade]

If that were the case, hardly anything, ever, would get done

Fortunately most things get done without a referendum and it's not too unreasonable to expect that especially for a very critical votum you want to have a clear majority behind your decision especially when you can get less than 2/3 of voters vote on an important issue. In most parliaments 2/3 majority for critical changes is the norm. It makes decision more defensible and resilient against challenges.

[Deleted]

Its very important how many people go vote. I don't think 70% is small number but is it enough to make some drastic changes? I don't know. I know one for sure less ppl go vote less mandate to make drastic changes. Its duty of politicians to make people want to vote. If theres no will to vote, politicians failed. For example in my country around 50% ppl go vote. Winning party got 30 % of votes (so 15% in reality) so how strong is their mandate? I would say close to laughable. 70% out of 70% is around 50% of all possible votes...leavers won 52-48 and its close to draw, society is kinda broken at this point. Better question is: was this referendum even needed. I will give one example: lets make referendum in my country and ask ppl are they up for death penalty. 99% im sure they will want death penalty, but its against all treaties, EU and whole civilized world, so what is conclusion? You dont make stupid referendums.

Well Hitler was elected too.

The problem with that referendum is that people dont vote about the subject in question. They often try to punish their government. We have seen so many regional elections where people voted for anything but regional reasons.

Up to thursday i was a fan of more referendums and more direct democracy. But right now i have a feeling that people just tried to punish Cameron and the current establishment.

Also 52% of 70% voted for leave. So only 35% of all voters voted for leave. This is a very weak mandate as 65% didnt vote for leave.

And thats why we are seeing so much hatred. And to be honest: Article 50 could aleays be triggered. It cozkd be triggered in 3 years or 6 years or 10 years, whenever there is a clear majority ready to leave. But the way back to EU would be very hard.

[Noradin]

You don't think it makes sense to exclude someone from the legislative process when they're not part of the Union that's going to be affected by the results? You actually think the British should have a say in what's soon to be a foreign entity?

Of course he thinks that, he wants the UK to sit on both sides of the table for the negotiations.

[Deleted]

Of course he thinks that, he wants the UK to sit on both sides of the table for the negotiations.

Never gonna happen.

Is this the UK way? Ask for the impossible and cry when noone listens to you?

Once UK leaves the EU, they arent going to listen to you anymore. They will be on the other site of the table.

Out is out.

[Slant]

And thats why we are seeing so much hatred. And to be honest: Article 50 could aleays be triggered. It cozkd be triggered in 3 years or 6 years or 10 years, whenever there is a clear majority ready to leave. But the way back to EU would be very hard.

It's actually not.

Article 49

Print
Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members. The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account.

[Sodia]

Of course he thinks that, he wants the UK to sit on both sides of the table for the negotiations.

BOW down before the Queen and her Empire!! It sims they miss the memo ... The Empire is no more....

[Noradin]

Well, the EU still has to have a dialogue with the UK so that the transition from a EU member to losing the membership will not cause major disaster. Refusing to have a dialogue with one of the most influential European countries will not really help the EU either in the long run and will only extend the transition process for no good reason.

They are having a dialogue, they just won't let the UK sit on both sides of the negotiation table when discussing their leaving the EU.
The UK would just use their vote to sabotage the EU to pressure all others into giving them undeserved concessions if they allowed negotiations of the leave to happen while the UK still had a vote in the EU.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Well Hitler was elected too.

The problem with that referendum is that people dont vote about the subject in question. They often try to punish their government. We have seen so many regional elections where people voted for anything but regional reasons.

Up to thursday i was a fan of more referendums and more direct democracy. But right now i have a feeling that people just tried to punish Cameron and the current establishment.

Also 52% of 70% voted for leave. So only 35% of all voters voted for leave. This is a very weak mandate as 65% didnt vote for leave.

And thats why we are seeing so much hatred. And to be honest: Article 50 could aleays be triggered. It cozkd be triggered in 3 years or 6 years or 10 years, whenever there is a clear majority ready to leave. But the way back to EU would be very hard.

Many people voted Brexit because they thought it would mean many immigrants would get deported, or at least that immigration would be slowed to a trickle, and that's the single issue they were voting on. Now I hear that several of the politicians who were saying anti immigrant stuff to push Brexit are now backing down on their harsh anti immigrant rhetoric and are going to be diappointing a lot of people who thought Brexit meant they stopped immigration.

As silly as comparing this to the vote for Hitler is and I'm sure many will object to it... Hitler did win through lots of rhetoric demonizing immigrants for ruining the German economy.

[Stacyrect]

Fortunately most things get done without a referendum and it's not too unreasonable to expect that especially for a very critical votum you want to have a clear majority behind your decision especially when you can get less than 2/3 of voters vote on an important issue. In most parliaments 2/3 majority for critical changes is the norm. It makes decision more defensible and resilient against challenges.

In theory I totally agree, practically speaking 99/100 times it will not happen and the odds go down even more the more complex the issue is. Shit, if we had a similar system here in America, we would have died due to indecision already lol